228 LAMARCK AND DARWIN 



plicity and continuity of the scale ; in his supplementary 

 remarks to the Introduction of 1816 he admits that the series 

 is really very much branched, and even that there may be 

 two distinct series among animals instead of one. His last 

 schema of the course of evolution shows no little analogy 

 with the genealogical trees of Darwinian speculation. It is 

 headed " The presumed Order of the formation of Animals, 

 showing two separate partly-branching series," and it reads 

 as follows : 



I . Scries of Non-articulated 1 1. Series of Articulated 



Animals. Animals. 



Infusoria. 



I 

 Polyps. 



'^ rt 



' & 



c .5 ' 



1) C 



Ascidians. Radiates. Worms. 



It 



in C 



C 'P 



o> ~, 



C/J < 



Epizoa. 

 Acephala. 



Annelids. Insects. 



Molluscs. 



Crustacea. 

 Cirripedes. 



Arachnids. 



Fishes. 



^'B I Reptiles. 



Birds. 

 Mammals. 



It is interesting to note that Vertebrates are placed 

 between the two series, and are now not linked on directly to 

 any Invertebrate group. 



Lamarck's theory had little success. There is evidence, 

 however, that both Meckel and Geoffroy owed a good many of 

 their evolutionary ideas to Lamarck, and Cuvicr paid him at 

 least the compliment of criticising his theory, 1 not distinguish- 

 ing it, however, very clearly from the evolutionary theories of 

 the transcendentalists. But, speaking generally, Lamarck's 

 theory of evolution exercised very little influence upon his 



1 As did also Lyell in his Principles of Geology, 1830. 



